Why is this forum so political, moral, and social?

[Neuro]

It always seems that the more you learn about humanity the more humanity seems to be a flock of mindless apes. A phrase that comes to mind is, "The more you know, the less you want to know any more."

 

Even on a science forum, I look around and see a theology forum, posters who post exclusively on things that pertain to god, people who post exclusively about the Urantia book, and people who post exclusively on issues of moral discussion. None of the above is really scientific and would all fit the bill if a single sub forum was made titled Things that have absolutely nothing to do with science. Before a handful of you rush to claim hypocrite, note that my posts in moral discussions were mainly composed of words to suggest how pointless moral discussions are. This is not a critique of the forum; it is a critique of the humanity that this forum is nothing more than a reflection of.

 

Always true is the idea that opinions will change in the face of new knowledge. No one would dare to disagree with such a statement but even this statement requires me to declare opinions I do not even believe in. When you get to a point in your understanding of the world, you understand that opinions are all subjective and to have one is futile. It is the endgame opinion, no opinion.

 

With this in mind, I come to this forum, and see nothing but people who have opinions they are passionate about. Clearly, there are a lot of people that have not yet reached the end game of human thought. With each firmly held opinion in a theology or political or moral debate I see exposed the dark truth of humanity: ignorance. It seems, so many people really want to just declare god supports their morals at the deepest level, thus, enabling them to believe their own lies. It is insanity to me; an insanity that the majority of humanity seems to embrace.

 

Appealing to your inner scientist, I can say that you know everything is subjective. Appealing to your inner weakling of a self, I can say that you are likely to conjure up some false excuse of a god to validate your opinions and render your life a fairy tale worth living.

 

I’ve tried to discuss a few of these concepts in other threads but it had the foreseeable result of stirring up O’Reily and Ann Coulter to defend the ape ideology in the most irrelevant and unscientific way possible. I am writing this as someone who is done with such discussions of humanity and psyche until I come across people who wish to discuss in private and have something to contribute to the discussion that does more for me than give me someone to argue with. For the sake of dieing trends, this is going to be the last thread ever of this content created by me on any forum.

 

Honestly, such limited minds with such minimal scopes of thought disgust me. I have more friends in books than I do in people and I even dislike the authors for they too are human which tends to render them simply unappealing. If your response has some cliché waste of letters mentioning parties and humour, then you are of the very people I speak of.

 

Why must this species be so?

[Boerseun]

First of all, the Theology Forum is a bin catering for all things Theological, regardless of belief or religion, as a subset of social sciences. Surely you can understand that.

 

Secondly, its amazing that you keep on hammering at the whole 'god' concept. I refer to our discussion in your 'morality' thread, where you spun everything to be about morals being subjective and god etc., and we suck as humans because we have to base our morals on god, etc., etc., etc. Yet, me being an atheist, pointed out to you that the only person incessantly keeping on dragging god into the argument is, in fact, you. Ironic, not?

 

If you have no time and/or respect for Hypography, and how we conduct business, I suggest you move right along. A sad, lonely path it might be, but stop complaining to us about how we suck as weakling humans. You chose your path. Go and read a book somewhere and despise the author for being human. You truly are a sad case.

[Tormod]

If your response has some cliché waste of letters mentioning parties and humour, then you are of the very people I speak of.

 

I wonder why forums in general attracts certain people who like to stereotype others, and ridicule everyone who does not thing like themselves.

 

The quoted comment above is a good example of things that do not belong in a discussion forum, no matter what the topic is about.

[Neuro]

First of all, the Theology Forum is a bin catering for all things Theological, regardless of belief or religion, as a subset of social sciences. Surely you can understand that.

 

Secondly, its amazing that you keep on hammering at the whole 'god' concept. I refer to our discussion in your 'morality' thread, where you spun everything to be about morals being subjective and god etc., and we suck as humans because we have to base our morals on god, etc., etc., etc. Yet, me being an atheist, pointed out to you that the only person incessantly keeping on dragging god into the argument is, in fact, you. Ironic, not?

 

If you have no time and/or respect for Hypography, and how we conduct business, I suggest you move right along. A sad, lonely path it might be, but stop complaining to us about how we suck as weakling humans. You chose your path. Go and read a book somewhere and despise the author for being human. You truly are a sad case.

If you have morals you are a theist. If you don't, you would be in total agreement with me.

[Neuro]

I wonder why forums in general attracts certain people who like to stereotype others, and ridicule everyone who does not thing like themselves..

What else am I supposed to do, talk to books?

 

The quoted comment above is a good example of things that do not belong in a discussion forum, no matter what the topic is about

The above was said by the genius who thought these three posts were fine replies to an introductory thread:

You should add "humor" to the list of subjects you study.

*heads over to the fun kids by the swings*

I'll retract my welcome then. Here's to a sad day!

 

It is clear why you were offended by that quote you made in your post; it implies I hold people like you in contempt.

[pgrmdave]

Always true is the idea that opinions will change in the face of new knowledge. No one would dare to disagree with such a statement but even this statement requires me to declare opinions I do not even believe in. When you get to a point in your understanding of the world, you understand that opinions are all subjective and to have one is futile. It is the endgame opinion, no opinion.

 

I disagree. I think that, if we had all the knowledge possible, it would still be possible for me to say that certain actions are better for a given group. In fact, it would be far easier. Perhaps I would know that, for instance, eliminating the death penalty would have a better outcome than keeping it. Or perhaps I would know that abortion is beneficial to society. In reality, if I had infinite knowledge, I could have a perfectly justified opinion on anything.

[Boerseun]

It is clear why you were offended by that quote you made in your post; it implies I hold people like you in contempt.

"People like you" i.e. Tormod, me and the rest of the guys, are the Hypo make-up. If you don't like it, may I suggest you find another forum somewhere that'll cater to your needs.

 

Also, having morals do not imply believing in god, however much you might want it to be the case. If I do what I do based solely on a belief in 'doing unto others as I would have done to me', there is no god involved or even implied, but it makes for a complete and fine set of morals to live by. You might not understand it, and that's your prerogative. If you want to scare god out from under every available bush, you'll very likely find him. But you won't find him in my morality, which I do have, by the way.

 

Run along now, we're having too much fun here to be held in contempt by you.

[pgrmdave]

If you have morals you are a theist. If you don't, you would be in total agreement with me.

 

Neuro - YOU ARE WRONG ON THIS POINT!!!

 

People have kept trying to point out to you that there can be a social basis for morality. Morality can help keep a society from crumbling because it helps maintain order. You are the only person who continually brought god into the previous discussion on morality, and yet you continue to hold false, subjective opinions about moraility.

[Neuro]

I disagree. I think that, if we had all the knowledge possible, it would still be possible for me to say that certain actions are better for a given group. In fact, it would be far easier. Perhaps I would know that, for instance, eliminating the death penalty would have a better outcome than keeping it. Or perhaps I would know that abortion is beneficial to society. In reality, if I had infinite knowledge, I could have a perfectly justified opinion on anything.

This made me nearly laugh, but then I vomited in my own mouth and had to swallow what I could while spitting some into a napkin. You see, to say anything is good requires morality which is baseless in science.

[pgrmdave]

I have more friends in books than I do in people and I even dislike the authors for they too are human which tends to render them simply unappealing.

 

Neuro, do you know what a friend is?

[pgrmdave]

This made me nearly laugh, but then I vomited in my own mouth and had to swallow what I could while spitting some into a napkin. You see, to say anything is good requires morality which is baseless in science.

 

Reread my quote, Neuro. I never used the word good. I said that I would know if things are better for a given group. For example, I can say, without any subjectivity, that killing everybody in NJ would be bad for NJ's society. That doesn't mean that I'm making a subjective morality judgement. It is possible that somebody else would think it was a good thing. However, any society would be lost. And no, it has no basis in science, but not everything needs to, or do you discount mathematics as well?

[Neuro]

Neuro, do you know what a friend is?

People like me are parasitic and can never commit to an action that does not benefit the self either indirectly or directly. I've had business partnerships and dumb people who did me favours.

[Buffy]

I hold people like you in contempt.

How's that workin' for ya, Neuro?

 

On the other hand, sometimes its an equal and identical reaction,

Buffy

[pgrmdave]

People like me are parasitic and can never commit to an action that does not benefit the self either indirectly or directly. I've had business partnerships and dumb people who did me favours.

 

So then, you would agree that you generally know what actions would be 'good' for you to take - i.e. an action that benefits you. How then, can you not seem to understand that by the same token people can know what actions can benefit the group, and call those actions 'good' for society?

[Neuro]

Reread my quote, Neuro. I never used the word good. I said that I would know if things are better for a given group. For example, I can say, without any subjectivity, that killing everybody in NJ would be bad for NJ's society. That doesn't mean that I'm making a subjective morality judgement. It is possible that somebody else would think it was a good thing. However, any society would be lost. And no, it has no basis in science, but not everything needs to, or do you discount mathematics as well?

Better by definition is more good. Moral.

 

The reason it is a moral issue is because you have to hypothetically place your pin of morality on the board and say it is good that society survives. Very simple concept. Scientifically, it is neither good nor bad for society if the society is hit with a nuclear missile or given the gift of immortality and cultural wealth. It just doesn't matter. To say it is good, bad, worse, or better is to use morality to formulate a judgment.

 

Basically, you cannot have an opinion that you believe in without having morality behind it. If you don't believe this, create any opinion you can think of and then ask yourself the question 'why', you will eventually dig and get to your morals that support the opinion unless you think you are clever and use cyclical answers which are not legitimate becuase they are ultimately being answered incorrectly.

[Neuro]

How's that workin' for ya, Neuro?

 

On the other hand, sometimes its an equal and identical reaction,

Buffy

I know enough about society to pick any dog out of the pack and make it my slave. The problem is, such just doesn't work on fellow cats which are the only people I'd be intellectually interested in anyways.

 

It is working neither good nor bad. That requires an opinion. :shrug:

[Buffy]

The reason it is a moral issue is because you have to hypothetically place your pin of morality on the board and say it is good that society survives.

Its not just "society" that survives. Its you.

 

Let's make this scientific: that of yours line above, "I hold people like you in contempt," Go try that at a biker bar at 2am: explain how little they all mean to you and how stupid you think they all are.

 

See what happens. I don't think anyone's going to be hurt by "don't speak ill of your neighbor" in that experiment except you...

 

Empirically Moral,

Buffy